No love for MH?

[A. grandis]

With more and more people realizing how amazing the results of metal halides and T5s are, the market is changing naturally.
It's already happening before our eyes. The idea that LEDs would totally rule is wrong and totally regressive IMO. Every lightning system has it's place and should be widely available for those who wish and need. That's what I always have been looking for posting here. That is what makes the hobby to grow. I'm happy to witness what's going on. Not trying to provoke nor bring any type of discussion. Just want to express myself and found this thread a good place.
Cheers.

 

[A. grandis]

I have to disagree with the Kelvin rating doesn't matter. There are some bulbs that are sold as 20k, 14k, 10k, etc with different spectrums and a noticable difference in color to the eye and comparing that to coral names just doesn't make sense to me. Hamilton markets there halide bulbs like that for a reason. To some it will "matter" as they want a certain look pleasing to their eyes. Can you imagine buying halide bulbs and you purchase a 10k and 20k but someone says it doesn't matter, it's how they work?

I agree with you. What I've meant is that the numbers are chosen by each company as a visual comparison and they aren't really the true K, but a reference.

 

[DSC reef]

I agree with you. What I've meant is that the numbers are chosen by each company as a visual comparison and they aren't really the true K, but a reference.

I gotcha now, I misread

 

[Smite]

So out of curiosity


What would a efficient MH system look like for a 180g tank? 6x2x2. Sps wall to wall, bottom to top

 

[oreo54]

With more and more people realizing how amazing the results of metal halides and T5s are, the market is changing naturally.
It's already happening before our eyes. The idea that LEDs would totally rule is wrong and totally regressive IMO. Every lightning system has it's place and should be widely available for those who wish and need. That's what I always have been looking for posting here. That is what makes the hobby to grow. I'm happy to witness what's going on. Not trying to provoke nor bring any type of discussion. Just want to express myself and found this thread a good place.
Cheers.

survey disagrees w/ you w/ a 60/40 split....

 

[oreo54]

I agree with you. What I've meant is that the numbers are chosen by each company as a visual comparison and they aren't really the true K, but a reference.

Really?????

 

[Jacked Reefer]

So out of curiosity


What would a efficient MH system look like for a 180g tank? 6x2x2. Sps wall to wall, bottom to top

I would run 3 250w radium 20k’s in 16-18 inch reflectors with icecap ballasts. Dream halide setup. But most any 3 250 watt bulb, reflector, ballast combo would get the job done.

 

[alton]

So out of curiosity


What would a efficient MH system look like for a 180g tank? 6x2x2. Sps wall to wall, bottom to top

A 6' Giesemann Spectra Series with 3 x 250w and 4 T5's. In the summer run the MH only 3 hours in the evening when you are at home with letting the T5's run 10, and then a full 8 hours of MH in the winter to help warm the tank. My coral growth never slowed down in the summer with only three hours of MH.

 

[MnFish1]

"20K" is just a market name, like jda said..
It doesn't really matter what "K name" they give to a lamp.
It's just like cartoon names for corals. The scientific name, and specially what the coral actually is, is what should matter the most.
The market has been polluted with nicknames that are mostly for market identification and to drive sales.
People just have to realize that's not a big deal and not what should really matter, but the results of that bulb.

This doesn't make sense at all to me. If I as a consumer prefer a certain 'color temperature' and I bought a bulb labeled X K - and it wasnt X K I would be a bit ticked off. Its not just 'about the results of the bulb' - because different color temps seem to benefit certain types of coral more (or less) - at least according to the article presented earlier. So - when a person goes to replace a bulb - other than how its labeled - how can on have any clue as to whether the bulb they are getting is similar (at all) to the prior bulb - especially if its a different manufacturer.

 

[MnFish1]

With more and more people realizing how amazing the results of metal halides and T5s are, the market is changing naturally.
It's already happening before our eyes. The idea that LEDs would totally rule is wrong and totally regressive IMO. Every lightning system has it's place and should be widely available for those who wish and need. That's what I always have been looking for posting here. That is what makes the hobby to grow. I'm happy to witness what's going on. Not trying to provoke nor bring any type of discussion. Just want to express myself and found this thread a good place.
Cheers.

Well - judging by the poll at the start of the thread - you're not correct. . I mean only 16 percent use MH now (on a high end reefing site) and 25 percent might use them again (I voted this way - because 'I might' but its highly unlikely. If you look at the average tank owner not posting here - my guess is (and its a guess -but partly based on the poll) - most people are not going back to MH and only a very small number of marine tank owners use them.

 

[Jacked Reefer]

Well - judging by the poll at the start of the thread - you're not correct. .

41 percent of people are using or want to use halides. 25 percent of people will probably use them in the future. It’s on an upward slope my friend. And when you account for t5 I feel like your going to have a bit more people who own those two over leds.

 

[A. grandis]

survey disagrees w/ you w/ a 60/40 split....

Survey is actually the beginning of the process, as right now.
4 years ago it would be all on the LED side.
It's going to take some time, like everything else.
Just be ready for the graphs on that, my friend.

 

[A. grandis]

Really?????

Really.

 

[A. grandis]

Well - judging by the poll at the start of the thread - you're not correct. . I mean only 16 percent use MH now (on a high end reefing site) and 25 percent might use them again (I voted this way - because 'I might' but its highly unlikely. If you look at the average tank owner not posting here - my guess is (and its a guess -but partly based on the poll) - most people are not going back to MH and only a very small number of marine tank owners use them.

 

[naterealbig]

This doesn't make sense at all to me. If I as a consumer prefer a certain 'color temperature' and I bought a bulb labeled X K - and it wasnt X K I would be a bit ticked off. Its not just 'about the results of the bulb' - because different color temps seem to benefit certain types of coral more (or less) - at least according to the article presented earlier. So - when a person goes to replace a bulb - other than how its labeled - how can on have any clue as to whether the bulb they are getting is similar (at all) to the prior bulb - especially if its a different manufacturer.

Easy. Spectral Plots.

 

[oreo54]

Well IF you are defining TRUE K w/ the spectrum of a black body emitter at x temp well yes but like "PAR" which is totally incorrect useage of the term manuf "K" value should be called a CCT of 14000K
The difference is either minor or major depending on "exactly" where the measurement falls..

IF on the bb locus it should look and spec very close to true K..

Many natural and artificial light sources have spectral power distributions
whose chromaticities either coincide with or are very near a particular chromaticity on the Planckian locus.
Thus one can specify the color of such a light source simply by referring to its Planckian color temperature,
which may differ significantly from its actual kinetic temperature.
Strictly speaking, if the chromaticity of a light source is off the Planckian locus, we must use the
term correlated color temperature ~CCT! instead of color temperature to describe its appearance. Suppose
that x1, y1 is the chromaticity of such an off-locus light source. By definition, the CCT of x1, y1 is the temperature of the Planckian radiator whose chromaticity
is nearest to x1, y1.

Clearly the more distant this target chromaticity is from the Planckian locus, the less accurately CCT can describe its color.

https://www.usna.edu/Users/oceano/raylee/papers/RLee_AO_CCTpaper.pdf

If you think manuf. just "throw numbers" on there well that is incorrect..

 

[oreo54]

Easy. Spectral Plots.

Yes.... yet even that is subject to lot to lot variation...
You would need the spectral plot of "the bulb" you are using vs the plot of "the bulb" you used in the past.

But, yes close enough..

To MAKE it all clearer yes, K temps are only ONE part of the equation but it's not just a random number thrown on for making purposes.. in most cases .. there are exceptions..

 

[jda]

Why is this so hard for people to understand? Why are people up in arms about it? Every different type of lighting has some quirks like this... 410nm diodes are not really UV, for example.

I challenge anybody to look at a spectral plot and then describe what it might look like. 6500k bulb will have blue peaks as high as a Radium, but it does not look blue.

 

[A. grandis]

This doesn't make sense at all to me. If I as a consumer prefer a certain 'color temperature' and I bought a bulb labeled X K - and it wasnt X K I would be a bit ticked off. Its not just 'about the results of the bulb' - because different color temps seem to benefit certain types of coral more (or less) - at least according to the article presented earlier. So - when a person goes to replace a bulb - other than how its labeled - how can on have any clue as to whether the bulb they are getting is similar (at all) to the prior bulb - especially if its a different manufacturer.

They are similar, yes, as a general idea of the "color" for the market. That's what I've said.
For the communication sake.
If there was a common way to test and label them they would vary.
Please see past posts and you can understand better... Watch the video too.
This is not a big deal at all.

 

[A. grandis]

41 percent of people are using or want to use halides. 25 percent of people will probably use them in the future. It’s on an upward slope my friend. And when you account for t5 I feel like your going to have a bit more people who own those two over leds.

Yes, and when that happens we all going to agree and not try to defend purchases or plots or anything else on any side of the fence, Oreo. LOL!
There are many types of skimmers, for example, and even though some perform much better than others IMO or IYO we normally don't "fight" to prove anything with plots or skimmate... LOL! It's the results that matters for each of us. Let people try halides and T5s and they will fall in love with them. Results are actually facts. No need prove with graphics.
I like graphics and they are very important for us to understand many things in life, don't take me wrong.
As we've seen here in this thread, many are posting better results with halides. And hey... if they can buy and have them running, why not? Not a big deal.
Lets have fun.